[00:00:00] **Chair Rohman**: GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 22ND 2022 MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER BLOOMINGTON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS EVENING THERE ARE FIVE WHICH IS A QUORUM. THE COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG-RANGE PLANNING, AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. OUR WORK IS INFORMED BY THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, VARIOUS DISTRICT PLANS, AND THE CITY CODE. FOR SOME ITEMS, THE COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION WITH CITY COUNCIL HAVING FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY, WHICH IS THE CASE THIS EVENING WITH ITEMS. IN OTHER CASES, THE COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION AND SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. FOR EACH ACTION ITEM, THERE WILL BE A STAFF REPORT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO PRESENT, AND THEN TIME FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND AS YOU ARE ABLE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD ASK THE PLANNING MANAGER TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF HOW TO TESTIFY REMOTELY. PLEASE. [00:01:30] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TONIGHT AND WE WILL TAKE TESTIMONY HERE IN THE CHAMBERS, BUT IF SOMEBODY IS REMOTE AND WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY THEY CAN DO SO. THEY WOULD CALL INTO THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN AND THEN ADJOURN THE ACCESS CODE AND WE'D BE ABLE TO PASS THEM THROUGH. AND WE WILL HAVE THIS NUMBER ON THE SCREEN DURING THAT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. [00:01:55] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU. OUR FIRST ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS TO THIS AND OUR STAFF ON THIS ONE IS PLANNER O'DAY. IF YOU COULD GIVE US THE STAFF REPORT, THANK YOU. [00:02:10] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I DID ONE SCREENING AND THREE VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 8906 LOGAN AVENUE. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF KENLEY; THAT'S AROUND ONE USE. THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROPERTY HISTORY BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT: THE PROPERTY WAS THE HOME OF BOTH THE 1950 AND 1970 [STRUCTURES]. THE VARIANCE BOARD APPROVED A THREE-FOURTHS NINE-YARD SETBACK FOR A GARAGE, AND THEN SOMETIME BETWEEN 1972 AND 1985 A PORCH WAS BUILT OFF THE BACK OF THE GARAGE, AND THEN 1985 TO 1989 A COVER-UP WAS BUILT OFF THE BACK OF THE PORCH, AND THEN IN 2008 THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE HOME. HERE IS A SNIPPET OF THE SURVEY PROVIDED. AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE FRONT, THE GROUND IS BUILT AT A COMPLIANT CREEK, BUT THE FACT THAT THE GARAGE WAS BUILT AT THAT ANGLE WHICH RESULTS IN A 2.8 [FOOT] SETBACK, AND THEN CONTINUING THAT ANGLE, APARTMENTS BUILT AT 2.7 SETBACK, AND THEN WE CALL THAT A 2.6. THE COUPLE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VARIANCE: BECAUSE THE CURRENT LANDOWNER QUESTIONED THE SETBACK AND WAS PROACTIVE IN RESOLVING THE ISSUES OR APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE, AND THEN THE CITY IS UNAWARE OF ANY COMPLAINTS OR ISSUES FROM NEIGHBORS. AND THEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE OWNER INTENDS TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THE STRUCTURES AS IS; THEY WILL NOT BE DOING ANY MODIFYING OR EXPANDING OR RENOVATING OF THE STRUCTURES. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT THE VARIANCE IS [ADDRESSING], INCLUDING REMOVING INCHES OF THE GARAGE, 37 FEET OR THE PORCH TO A GARAGE, AND DEFINITELY A PORTION OF THE EXISTING [STRUCTURE]. AND DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THESE STRUCTURES TO THE LINE, THE STRUCTURE WOULD RESULT IN ACQUIRING A PAPER FROM THE NEIGHBOR. AND THEN I WANTED TO GO OVER THE STAFF RECOMMENDED [CONDITIONS]. THE FIRST TWO HAVE TO DO WITH MITIGATING AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOR, SO NO WINDOW MAY BE ADDED TO THE NORTH WALL OF THE PORCH, AND THEN THE SECOND CONDITION: SCREENING MUST BE ADDED TO THE NORTH PORTION OF [THE DECK] AND THE SCREENS SHOULD BE FULLY OPAQUE. STAFF CAN REVIEW ANY TYPE OF SCREENING THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE, EVEN THOUGH THE VARIANCE LANGUAGE IS STARTING TO BE STRUCTURED: NO ADDITIONS AND STRUCTURES MAY BE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY IN CURRENT—NO PORTION OF THE STRUCTURES MAY BE ADDED BEYOND THE EXISTING SETBACK POINT. AND THEN THE STAFF DID RECEIVE TWO EMAILS IN SUPPORT THIS AFTERNOON THAT HAVE BEEN EMAILED TO YOU AT THE SCENE, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. IF THIS GOES THROUGH TONIGHT, THIS WOULD GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE MORNING MEETING. AND I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND THE REALTOR IS ON THE CALL FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. [00:05:40] **Chair Rohman**: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ABDI. [00:05:45] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MEAN, SO COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE ASSEMBLED SURVEY? SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SURVEY. UM, THE VARIANCE BEING SOUGHT IS 2.5 FEET, BUT THE DETAILS ON THE SCREEN HERE SHOW THE LEAST SETBACK IS POINT SIX. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? [00:06:05] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ABDI, THE TWO AND A HALF FEET GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF MARGIN OF ERROR IN MEASURING. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THEY MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE OF A LINE; IF YOU MEASURE IN FRONT OF THE INSIDE OF THESE LINES YOU GET A SMALLER NUMBER. SO TWO AND A HALF FEET ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE BIT OF MARGIN FOR ERROR IN THE MEASUREMENT, BUT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT NONE OF THE STRUCTURES MAY BE EXPANDED OR BE LESS IN NUMBER THAN THE CURRENT SETBACK POINTS. [00:06:40] **Chair Rohman**: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:06:45] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MS. O'DAY, CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER TWO AGAIN WITH THE SCREEN? JUST A FURTHER EXPLANATION OF WHAT THAT MEANS, SIR? [00:07:00] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, COMMISSIONER COOKSON, I MEAN ACTUALLY WITH THAT TO THE PORTION THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT—SO YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR—SCREENING WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED BASICALLY IN THIS AREA, AND THAT'S TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT SCREENING MUST BE FULLY OPAQUE, AND WE CAN REVIEW ANY PLANS THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO US TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE INTENT OF FULLY [OPAQUE]. OKAY. SO YOU COULD PUT OUT SOME KIND OF READING WALL OR VEGETATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT IT DOES HAVE TO BE A FULLY OPAQUE SCREENING. THANK YOU. [00:07:45] **Chair Rohman**: I SEE WE HAVE LETTERS OF COMMENT FROM FOLKS IN THE AREA. HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION THAT THE STAFF HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2001 WEST 89TH? [00:08:00] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, THEY WERE NOTIFIED OF COURSE OF THE HEARING TONIGHT. I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM. I'M NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER, BUT I'LL LET HIM SPEAK ON ANY CONTACT, OF COURSE. [00:08:15] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU. AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION IF YOU COULD: ON THE SCREEN WITH THE CONDITIONS, IF YOU COULD SHARE WITH ME THE STAFF'S INTENT ON CONDITION NUMBER THREE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONS OR STRUCTURES IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING SETBACK. WHAT'S YOUR INTENT WITH THAT CONDITION? [00:08:35] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, THAT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT NO STRUCTURES MAY BE ADDED OVER TO THE PROPERTY LINE BEYOND THE EXISTING FIRE [SETBACK]. [00:08:45] **Chair Rohman**: SO IF I WERE THE HOMEOWNER AND I WANTED TO, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, TRIPLE THE SIZE OF THAT COVERED PORCH, THAT DECK, I COULD DO THAT AT THE 2.6 FOOT SETBACK WITH THIS CONDITION? [00:09:00] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: UM YEAH, THAT'S INCORRECT. SO YOU CAN EXPAND ON THE PORCH BUT I MEAN EXPANSION OF STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO MEET CODE, THE CURRENT CODE. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING IS NO ADDITIONS OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE PART OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, CORRECT? NOW I MAY NOT EXPLAIN THAT VERY WELL, BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT—THIS CONDITION DOESN'T CREATE AN ENTITLEMENT TO ADD A SHED OR A MASSIVE DECK AT THAT REDUCED SETBACK. [00:09:30] **Chair Rohman**: FOR OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. [00:09:40] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE KELLY WRIGHT ON THE CALL AND STEVE TRAIN. I WILL UNMUTE BOTH OF THEM SO THEY CAN MAKE COMMENTS. THANK YOU. [00:09:50] **Chair Rohman**: WE HAVE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOUR NAME WHEN YOU SPEAK AND FEEL FREE TO LET US KNOW ANYTHING WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS APPLICATION. HELLO, PLEASE, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK, SIR? [00:10:05] **Steve Train (Applicant)**: SIR, I CAN JUST SPEAK REALLY BRIEFLY. STEVE TRAIN, I'M THE HOMEOWNER AT 8906 LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO LIZ AND THE COMMISSION FOR HELPING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS. IT'S BEEN RATHER [LENGTHY] AND I THINK WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK ON THIS. I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. [00:10:35] **Chair Rohman**: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:10:40] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. TRAIN, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, NUMBER TWO, IS THAT SCREENING HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE NORTH FACE OF THAT COVERED DECK. DOES THAT FEEL BURDENSOME TO YOU? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'VE HAD HEARTACHE OVER? IS THAT A BIG DEAL FOR YOU? [00:11:00] **Steve Train (Applicant)**: STEVE SPEAKING HERE. I GUESS IT DOESN'T FEEL OVERLY BURDENSOME. I MEAN, IF IT'S NECESSARY—MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION—BUT IF IT'S REQUIRED, I GUESS I WANT TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU. [00:11:20] **Chair Rohman**: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE CHAMBERS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC ONLINE, CHAT ROOM? [00:11:40] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: WE HAVE NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC ONLINE. [00:11:45] **Chair Rohman**: OKAY. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE IN THE CHAMBERS AND NO ONE ONLINE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [00:11:50] **Commissioner**: SO MOVED. [00:11:51] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:11:52] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES; THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:12:10] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, OUR CONVERSATION THERE WITH THE APPLICANT—HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION CONDITION NUMBER TWO WAS A RECOMMENDATION. BEING THAT YOU ARE THIS REPRESENTATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR THE APPLICANT THAT THAT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION? [00:12:30] **Chair Rohman**: RIGHT. I THINK IN READING, I COULD SEE WHERE YOU READ THE SCREEN OR READ THE MATERIAL AND IT'S THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. AND SO IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTS THESE CONDITIONS, THEY ARE NOT RECOMMENDED; THEY BECOME REQUIRED. SO THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL ADOPT. COMMISSIONER ABDI. [00:13:00] **Commissioner Abdi**: FOR CLARIFICATION, BUILDING OFF WHAT COMMISSIONER COOKSON WAS ASKING: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VERSUS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS—WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? AND THIS CAN BE FOR STAFF. [00:13:10] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, COMMISSIONER ABDI, THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS ARE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BOTH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP WILL BE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDITIONS, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR A STRUCTURE TO HAPPEN; IN THIS CASE, IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION ESSENTIALLY FOR IT TO STAY. [00:13:45] **Chair Rohman**: SINCE MY ONLY COMMENT IS I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IN NUMBER THREE THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THOSE ADDED TO IN ANY WAY. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE SOMEONE PUT A SHED ALSO TWO AND A HALF FEET IN. I MEAN, SO AGAIN, MY THINKING ABOUT THIS VARIANCE IS ONE THING IF IT'S WHAT EXISTS IS FINE AND NOTHING MORE. BUT IF THE NEXT OWNER WANTED TO MAKE A LARGE DECK, THE WAY I READ THIS, THAT WOULD BE A RIGHT. SO IT SAYS NO ADDITIONS TO THE CURRENT NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND I WOULD SAY "OR STRUCTURES." I JUST WORRY ABOUT THE "OR STRUCTURES" PART LEADING TO THE ABILITY TO ADD OTHER THINGS LATER, AND I HEARD THE STAFF VERY CLEARLY SAY THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT. SO IF ANYONE HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS ON WORDING AROUND THAT, OR IF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TASK HAS SOME IDEAS, BUT I THINK THE INTENT IS THERE. I JUST WANT US TO NOT HAVE THREE OWNERS DOWN THE ROAD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN ALL THE STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS ARE GONE. OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:15:10] **Commissioner Cookson**: SORRY, I WAS WRAPPED UP IN THE SCREEN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD ASK STAFF A QUESTION PLEASE? CONDITION NUMBER TWO, WHERE WE'RE ADDING SCREENING TO THE PORTION OF THE PORCH—IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR THAT TYPE OF THING? DO YOU FEEL WE WOULD BE SETTING A NEW PRECEDENT IF WE DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT? [00:15:35] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, COMMISSIONER COOKSON, I'M NOT AWARE—CERTAINLY WE'VE HAD SCREENING CONDITIONS, BUT NOTHING WITH THE PARTICULARS OF THIS IN MY OPINION. BUT I WELCOME AMANDA'S THOUGHTS ON THIS TOO. [00:15:50] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, COMMISSIONER COOKSON, WHAT WE WERE THINKING WITH THIS CONDITION IS THE CODE REQUIRES A TEN-FOOT SETBACK FOR A DECK OF THAT NATURE ALONG THE SIDE LINE, AND GIVEN THAT IT'S THERE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE CODE-REQUIRED SETBACK. CONDITION NUMBER TWO WOULD BE A WAY TO AT LEAST MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THERE ARE WINDOWS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THAT SIDE, AND IT WOULD BASICALLY JUST MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS BY ADDING THAT SCREEN IN. [00:16:25] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU MR. O'DAY AND MR. MARKEGARD. THAT'S MY ONE HANG-UP ON THIS APPLICATION. I'D LIKE TO HEAR OTHER COMMISSIONERS' THOUGHTS ON NUMBER TWO. YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION THAT'S BEEN LIKE THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE APPLICANT WAS PROACTIVE IN COMING TO THE CITY AND ASKING FOR THIS. I DON'T FEEL GREAT ABOUT SOMEONE DOING THE RIGHT THING AND COMING TO US AND THEN US SAYING "BUT YOU GOT TO DO THIS." I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT; MR. MARKEGARD'S COMMENTS MAKE SENSE TO ME, SO I'M NOT SWAYED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR OTHER COMMISSIONERS' THOUGHTS ON CONDITION NUMBER TWO. [00:17:10] **Chair Rohman**: I WONDER IF STAFF COULD GIVE US JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT WOULD MEET THE STANDARD OF OPAQUE SCREENING? WHAT WOULD BE SOME SOLUTIONS THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE THAT WOULD MEET THAT, HOWEVER MINOR OR MAJOR THEY MAY BE? [00:17:25] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: CHAIR, I SUPPOSE AN ARCHITECTURAL WALL. I KNOW THE APPLICANT MENTIONED LATTICE, BUT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE THROUGH THOSE GAPS. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION; THOSE ARE KIND OF ON MY MIND. [00:17:45] **Chair Rohman**: OKAY, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ABDI. [00:17:50] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF ALL THREE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE ANYTHING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE; WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING VERY LENIENT BY MAKING IT A NON-CONFORMITY IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, THE EXISTING OWNER IS TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY. IF THE NEW OWNER HAS A BIG ISSUE WITH IT... OWNERS CHANGE, PROPERTIES DON'T CHANGE. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND COMPLAINTS, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR EACH NEIGHBOR IF YOU HAVE A LOUD DECK SITUATION AND YOU HAVE NO PROTECTION FROM THAT, AND THERE'S NOTHING THE CITY CAN DO TO REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT NOW IS THROUGH THIS CONDITION. I THINK THAT WOULD JUST BE VERY HELPFUL CONSIDERING THAT THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS ALREADY TOO CLOSE TO WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR A DECK. AND I THINK NUMBER THREE WOULD ENSURE THAT THE EXPANSION OF A POTENTIAL DECK WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK THAT IS REQUIRED. MS. O'DAY, IS THE OPACITY A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT, LIKE 60%? OR IS IT WHEN YOU SAY FULL CAPACITY, IS THAT LIKE COMPLETELY BLACKED OUT? [00:19:25] **Liz O'Day (Planner)**: THERE IS NOT VISIBILITY THROUGH, LIKE IF YOU IMAGINE A SIX-FOOT FENCE THAT'S COMPLETELY PRIVATE VERSUS ONE WHERE YOU CAN SEE VISIBILITY THROUGH IT. [00:19:40] **Commissioner Abdi**: MY ONLY CONCERN WITH ALLOWING PLANTING FOR THIS KIND OF THING IS PLANTING CAN BE TRIMMED, REMOVED, OR IT COULD DIE, AND THE OWNER (NEW OR EXISTING) WILL NOT REPLACE IT. SO THEN HOW DO YOU GO BACK AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT? SO MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE A STRUCTURE ADDED TO THAT SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PERMANENT VERSUS A DYING BUSH THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST DURING THE WINTER. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT; I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED WITH THESE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. [00:20:20] **Chair Rohman**: ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? I THINK THE PLANNING MANAGER—DID YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS ON LANGUAGE THAT WOULD CLARIFY NUMBER THREE? [00:20:30] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, WE CAN USE THIS TO WORDSMITH ON THE FLY, BUT THIS IS THE CONDITION AS IT WAS DRAFTED AND THEN A POTENTIAL CHANGE THAT MEETS YOUR CONCERN: "NO ADDITIONS OR STRUCTURES MAY BE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT MEET CITY CODE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS." [00:21:00] **Chair Rohman**: I LIKE THAT BETTER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO OTHERS, BUT THIS IS MORE CLEAR BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT ANYTHING NEW DOES NOT GET THE 2.5 FOOT SETBACK; IT MUST MEET THE CURRENT CODE. I APPRECIATE THAT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE STAFF'S INTENT, I JUST WORRY ABOUT SOMEONE READING IT LATER. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT LANGUAGE CHANGE IN OUR MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER COOKSON? [00:21:30] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT AND I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT CONDITION NUMBER TWO. I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COME FORWARD PROACTIVELY. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHY WE WOULD WANT SCREENING THERE, BUT BEING THAT IT HAS TO BE FULLY OPAQUE, I MEAN THAT'S SOMETHING REAL. IT DETRACTS FROM THE CHARACTER OF THAT HOME AND THAT PORCH. IT TURNS THE CORNER 90 DEGREES, IT'S AN OPEN PORCH, AND I THINK IT WOULD CHANGE THE LOOK AND IT MIGHT LOOK BAD UNLESS YOU HIRED AN ARCHITECT. MY PARENTS HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO HAD TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY PUT PLYWOOD UP AND IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT CONDITION NUMBER TWO. I THINK WE'RE BEING OVERLY BURDENSOME IN THIS CASE, AND THEIR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH WAS PROVIDED A LETTER IN THE MAIL TO PROVIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEY DID NOT. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR OPPORTUNITY. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. BUT BEING THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM, I FIND THAT CONDITION TO BE OVERLY BURDENSOME. [00:22:50] **Chair Rohman**: I WOULD NOTE WE RECEIVED A CHART THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE INTERESTED IN. IF YOU WANTED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHAT WOULD BE THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? [00:23:05] **Commissioner Cookson**: I ALREADY ASKED THEM THE QUESTION, SO I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO, BUT I'LL LEAVE THE FINAL DECISION TO YOU, MR. CHAIR. [00:23:15] **Chair Rohman**: I CAN KEEP THAT OPTION FOR A SECOND AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE OF CONDITION NUMBER TWO. PERHAPS IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO FULLY DISCUSS IT BEFORE WE GET BACK INTO A BACK AND FORTH. OTHER THOUGHTS ON CONDITION NUMBER TWO? [00:23:40] **Commissioner Gorman**: YEAH, I THINK I'M JUST TRYING TO REFLECT ON THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS. IT SEEMS LIKE MR. MARKERGUARD SAID THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE COMMISSIONER ABDI MENTIONED, THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE OF OWNERS, HAVING A STRUCTURE THAT IS PERMANENT VERSUS SOMETHING LIKE VINES THAT MIGHT GO AWAY WOULD BE BETTER. I STILL THINK THE BEST WAY TO GO WOULD BE WITH THE INCLUSION OF THAT SECOND REQUIREMENT; I DO SUPPORT THAT ONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT TYPE OF FLEXIBILITY. SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT. [00:24:45] **Chair Rohman**: QUESTION FOR STAFF: I ASSUME WHATEVER ARCHITECTURAL OR STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS TO DO SOMETHING AT THIS NORTH END WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT? [00:24:55] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR, IT DEPENDS ON THE OVERALL HEIGHT, I BELIEVE, BUT ANYTHING SHORTER THAN THREE FEET WOULDN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT. [00:25:05] **Chair Rohman**: OKAY, BUT I ASSUME THAT THE HEIGHT IS PROBABLY EIGHT FEET OR SEVEN FEET BECAUSE IT'S FLOOR TO CEILING, CORRECT? THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS I WOULD CONCERN THAT IF WE REQUIRE A SOLUTION, MY INSTINCT IS THAT THE REST OF THAT RAILING ON THAT DECK IS NOT COMPLIANT BY TODAY'S CODE. ARE WE TRIGGERING SOMETHING THAT WOULD FORCE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE TO IMPROVE THE RAILING ALL THE WAY AROUND? THAT'S MY CONCERN—ARE WE UNINTENTIONALLY CREATING MORE THAN WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE? I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT KIND OF RAILING WITH THE GAP THERE THAT GOES OUT ON THE FRONT IS NOT COMPLIANT TODAY, CORRECT? [00:25:50] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT WOULD TRIGGER FILLING IN THIS AREA WITH A SOLID SCREEN. WHETHER A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE; I SUSPECT IT MAY BE. WE'D HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT. [00:26:10] **Chair Rohman**: I WOULD LEAN TOWARD COMMISSIONER COOKSON'S POSITION WITHOUT A CLEAR ANSWER ON THAT. [00:26:15] **Commissioner Cookson**: MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO THROW ONE OTHER COMMENT. EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE I STAND ON THIS, BUT PROFESSIONALLY I WORK IN DESIGN. I WORK WITH A LOT OF ARCHITECTS, AND YOU'VE GOT A UNIQUE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS VERY HOMOGENEOUS IN ITS CURRENT STATE. IF THIS APPLICANT DOESN'T HIRE AN ARCHITECT, THIS COULD BE A DETRACTION IF IT'S DONE WRONG. IT'S NOT EASY TO MAKE SOMETHING LOOK GOOD ON THE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE OF A BUILDING. [00:26:55] **Chair Rohman**: I'M JUST GOING TO CHECK AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TASK. [00:27:00] **Assistant City Attorney Task**: SORRY, I WAS OUT SHOVELING EARLIER SO I'M NOT DRESSED IN MY FINEST TODAY, BUT YOU DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT CONDITIONS ON VARIANCES. THE STATUTORY GUIDANCE IS THAT THEY NEED TO BEAR ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TO THE IMPACT CREATED BY THE VARIANCE. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS TO LOOK AT LEGALLY: THE IMPACT OF THE VARIANCE AND DOES THE CONDITION BEAR ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TO THAT IMPACT. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT PROPORTIONALITY IS THERE. [00:27:45] **Commissioner Cookson**: I'M CERTAINLY NOT RECOMMENDING WE FORCE THEM TO HIRE AN ARCHITECT. THAT'S JUST A WARNING THAT AS A DESIGNER MYSELF, I KNOW THIS IS TRICKY TO MAKE LOOK GOOD, ESPECIALLY IF WE MAKE IT FULLY OPAQUE. [00:28:05] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. FOR CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF AND MAYBE THE ATTORNEY: AS PART OF THE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, IS CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL BURDEN PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 40 YEARS, IF THIS CONDITION WOULD BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN, DO WE HAVE LEEWAY IN CONSIDERING THAT? [00:28:40] **Assistant City Attorney Task**: YES, YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE "PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST" FROM THE STATUTE. YOU CAN CONSIDER ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES OR HARDSHIP FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE. IT CAN'T BE THE ONLY CONSIDERATION, BUT IT CAN BE ONE OF MANY FACTORS YOU CONSIDER. [00:29:10] **Chair Rohman**: YEAH, I GUESS I WILL SAY FOR ME, I'M COMING AROUND ON LEANING AWAY FROM NUMBER TWO. BUT AGAIN, IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION TO HAVE NUMBER TWO, THAT'S FINE TOO. COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN. [00:29:25] **Commissioner McGovern**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AFTER LISTENING TO COMMISSIONER COOKSON, I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE NUMBER TWO SHOULD BE OMITTED. IT'S KIND OF BASED ON THE BOOK "IF YOU GIVE A MOUSE A COOKIE"—THIS COULD SPAWN SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST A COVERING. [00:29:45] **Commissioner Gorman**: SO IF NUMBER TWO IS REMOVED, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNCIL MAY END UP COMING BACK LATER WITH THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT? [00:30:00] **Chair Rohman**: NOT IF WE DON'T RECOMMEND IT. THE COUNCIL COULD PUT IT IN, BUT IF WE RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD WITH CONDITION NUMBER ONE AND CONDITION NUMBER THREE WITH AMENDED LANGUAGE, BUT NOT WITH NUMBER TWO... IT WOULD GO FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL KNOWING THE COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND NUMBER TWO, CORRECT? [00:30:20] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IF THE COMMISSION FEELS VERY STRONGLY IS WE WOULD CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO MATCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S. SO NUMBER TWO WOULD JUST BE OMITTED FROM THE REPORT THAT GOES TO THE COUNCIL. [00:30:40] **Chair Rohman**: ALL RIGHT. PLANNER O'DAY, COULD WE GET THE SCREEN WITH THE MOTIONS AT YOUR CONVENIENCE? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:30:50] **Commissioner Cookson**: MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO TAKE AN ATTEMPT AT A MOTION. CASE FILE 2022-231. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO (A) REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET TO TWO AND A HALF FEET FOR AN EXISTING GARAGE, (B) REDUCE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO TWO AND A HALF FEET FOR AN EXISTING COVERED PORCH, AND (C) REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO TWO AND A HALF FEET FOR AN EXISTING DECK AT 8906 LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH, SUBJECT TO CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITION NUMBER ONE, NOT CONDITION NUMBER TWO, AND CONDITION NUMBER THREE CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE THAT NO ADDITIONS OR STRUCTURES MAY BE ADDED THAT DO NOT MEET CITY CODE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. [00:32:00] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:32:05] **Chair Rohman**: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND THREE VARIANCES TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. THIS ITEM WILL MOVE ON TO THE JANUARY 9TH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN, AND NICK JOHNSON IS THE STAFF ON THIS ITEM. [00:32:40] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN ROHMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. HAPPY HOLIDAYS. IT'S TIME TO REVIEW THE WORK PLAN. IT'S BEEN A BUSY YEAR IN THE PLANNING DIVISION IN 2022. WE HAVE TEN CHAIRS IN PLANNING CURRENTLY, AND I THINK SEVEN PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED ROLES OR COME INTO THE PLANNING DIVISION THIS YEAR. SO A REALLY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEW BLOOD. GLEN MARKEGARD IS THE MANAGER. WE HAVE TWO SUBDIVISIONS: CURRENT PLANNING AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING. OUR CURRENT PLANNING UNIT DEALS WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CITY CODE QUESTIONS, PLATS, CONDITIONS, AND PERMITS. WE NOW HAVE TWO PLANNING TECHNICIANS TO HELP WITH COUNTER SERVICE. ON THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING SIDE, WE HAVE 2.3 PLANNERS; ONE POSITION IS AN 80/20 SPLIT WITH THE BLOOMINGTON HRA. LOOKING AT THE 2022 YEAR IN REVIEW: WE HAD THE AQR UPDATE FOR THE SOUTH LOOP, A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING STANDARD UPDATE, AND SEVERAL CITY CODE AMENDMENTS. MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED 8200 HUMBOLDT, OXBOW HEIGHTS SENIOR APARTMENTS, AND THE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY ADDITION. AS FAR AS NEW PROJECTS GO THIS YEAR, WE HAVE AN AMBITIOUS LIST. WE ARE ESTIMATING A DEMAND OF 4,550 HOURS OF PLANNING STAFF TIME, BUT WE CALCULATE WE HAVE 4,174 HOURS OF CAPACITY. WE QUITE OFTEN FIND THAT PROJECTS STRETCH INTO THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WHICH HELPS US BALANCE THIS. SOME PROJECTS INCLUDE THE TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, THE SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) STANDARDS, AND THE ZONING CODE REORGANIZATION TO CONSOLIDATE CHAPTERS 19 AND 21 INTO CHAPTER 21. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING STANDARDS, SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS, AND PICK-UP WINDOW STANDARDS. WE ARE ALSO EXCITED ABOUT THE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES PROJECT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. WE ARE ALSO UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MET COUNCIL SYSTEMS BY JUNE OF NEXT YEAR. AT THIS POINT, I'LL HAND IT OFF TO JULIE LONG, THE CITY ENGINEER. [00:38:30] **Julie Long (City Engineer)**: THANKS, NICK. SOME OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WE ARE WORKING ON INCLUDE THE 98TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. WE ARE ALSO UPDATING OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WE RECENTLY AWARDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRACT TO KIMLEY-HORN. WE WANT TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR NEIGHBORHOODS TO PETITION FOR ROAD CHANGES, LIKE WHAT HAPPENED ON LOUISIANA AVENUE. WE ARE ALSO UPDATING THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WITH A GRANT FROM MNDOT TO CONNECT DISPARATE LINKS IN OUR SIDEWALK AND TRAIL SYSTEM. FINALLY, THE "BLOOMINGTON TOGETHER TOMORROW" STRATEGIC PLAN HAS A MEASUREMENT COMPONENT DIRECTLY TIED TO SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. [00:41:10] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: GREAT. THANK YOU, JULIE. I REALIZED I LOST A COUPLE OF SLIDES REGARDING THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE AND THE WORLD EXPO SUPPORT. THE SOUTH LOOP PLAN HASN'T BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2012. THE WORLD EXPO HOST SITE WILL BE AWARDED MID-YEAR; IF WE ARE AWARDED THE EXPO, THAT WILL BE A MAJOR DRIVER FOR UPDATING THE SOUTH LOOP AIR (ALTERNATIVE INTERIM REVIEW). WE HAVE ALSO PROVIDED A MATRIX FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LEVELS BASED ON THE IAP2 SPECTRUM. I'LL STAY ON FOR QUESTIONS. [00:43:50] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU, THIS IS VERY GOOD WORK. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:44:00] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON, ONE ITEM THAT STICKS OUT TO ME IS THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE. EVEN IF WE ARE NOT AWARDED THE EXPO, I THINK THAT PLAN NEEDS AN UPDATE. I DON'T THINK THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE VISION IN THAT PLAN TODAY. I'D ALSO LIKE TO LOOK INTO THE "RUNWAY PARK" AREA UNDER THE NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY. THE REST OF THE PRIORITIES MAKE SENSE TO ME. [00:45:20] **Commissioner Gorman**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS DEFINITELY A LOT OF WORK. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE EQUITY INITIATIVES? [00:46:10] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RACIAL EQUITY ACTION TEAM (CD-REAT) COLLABORATES ACROSS DIVISIONS. WE ARE AUDITING OUR CITY CODE, INVESTIGATING FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FOR BUSINESSES, AND WORKING ON THE "BLOOM" WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO PAIR STUDENTS WITH INTERNSHIPS. WE ALSO INCLUDE RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ON MAJOR POLICIES. [00:48:30] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE FINANCIALS ADDED TO THESE REPORTS IN THE FUTURE—LIKE THE TOTAL INVESTMENT VALUE OR PROJECT COSTS THAT CAME TO BLOOMINGTON IN THE PAST YEAR. [00:49:15] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: WE CAN DEFINITELY ADD THAT INFORMATION FROM THE BUILDING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO OUR REPORTS AS WELL. [00:49:30] **Commissioner Cookson**: I HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAILHEAD CONNECTIONS TO THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN 2023? [00:49:50] **Julie Long (City Engineer)**: WE ARE LOOKING AT A TRAIL CONNECTION NEAR THE SCYRIAN PARKING RAMP. ALSO, THE MINNESOTA VALLEY STATE TRAIL PROJECT RECENTLY PASSED THROUGH THE FEDERAL SENATE, WHICH WOULD BUILD A SEGMENT FROM LYNDALE TO NINE MILE CREEK, INCLUDING A BRIDGE. [00:50:30] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU, ENGINEER LONG. I LIKE THE IDEA OF INTEGRATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLAN WITH THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. HOW DO WE ENSURE THEY DOVETAIL TOGETHER? [00:50:45] **Julie Long (City Engineer)**: THAT IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE THAT STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO MANAGE—HERDING ALL THE CATS IN THE SAME DIRECTION SO WE GET A COMPLEMENTARY PRODUCT OUT OF ALL THESE STUDIES. [00:51:15] **Chair Rohman**: GREAT. PLANNER JOHNSON, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A MOTION OF APPROVAL? [00:51:25] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: YES, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. [00:51:35] **Commissioner Gorman**: THANK YOU. IN CASE FILE 2022-239, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AS ATTACHED. [00:51:50] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:51:55] **Chair Rohman**: MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM THREE IS OUR REGULAR POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE. [00:52:10] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIR ROHMAN, OUR NEXT MEETING IS JANUARY 12TH. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS: A PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY RETAIL, THE NEW TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING, AND A STUDY ITEM ON THE SIGN ORDINANCE. [00:53:00] **Chair Rohman**: I WILL NOTE ON JANUARY 12TH I WILL NOT BE PRESENT. VICE CHAIR COOKSON, WILL YOU BE PRESENT? [00:53:10] **Commissioner Cookson**: I WILL CONFIRM, BUT YOU CAN ASSUME I WILL BE HERE. [00:53:15] **Chair Rohman**: THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, I THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR GREAT WORK THIS YEAR. THE COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED UNTIL JANUARY 12TH.